Gurumeet Singh vs The State of A.P.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The appellant was tried for the offence of causing death of a Sub-Inspector of Police, Malakpet, by name, E. Madhava Reddy, on the intervening night of 2/3.09.2007.

The case of the prosecution was that vehicle the Police, Malakpet at Gaddiannaram, commenced checking of vehicles from 11.30 p.m. on 02.09.2007, and two Sub-Inspectors, by names, Ch. Chandra Sekhar - P.W. - 1 and E. Madhava Reddy - the deceased, were discharging the duties at that time. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Security, Cyberabad - P.W. - 16, is said to have come to the checking party and informed them that a lorry bearing No. AP-09Y-7764 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it has dangerously overtook his vehicle; and that he asked them to intercept the said vehicle for checking. It was also stated that the deceased Madhava Reddy gave signal to stop, and pretending to be stopping the vehicle by taking to side, the driver of the vehicle had speeded it up. Madhava Reddy is said to have taken the lift from a motorcyclist - P.W. - 3, available at that place, and chased the lorry. P.W. - 1 is said to have followed them on a four wheeler i.e. Rakshak vehicle. It was alleged that the lorry was moving in a high speed but had slowed down near Nampally at A1 signal point at about 01.40 am, on account of a Car taking ''U'' turn. P.W. 3 is said to have come in front of the lorry with Madahva Reddy and when a signal was given to stop the vehicle, the driver is said to have dashed against Madhava Reddy and fled away. P.W. - 1 who was following the vehicle, is stated to have found Madhava Reddy in a pool of blood and shifted him to Hospital, where Madhava Reddy declared dead at 11.20 a.m. on the next day while undergoing treatment.

P.W. - 1 submitted a complaint - Ex. P. 1 in P.S., Nampally within whose jurisdiction the incident occurred. Crime No. 210 of 2007 was registered u/s 338 IPC and after the death of the deceased the provision of law was modified and Section 302 was mentioned. On the same day, the accused was said to have been apprehended together with vehicle by P.W. - 17 and handed over to P.W. - 20 - the investigating officer. P.W. - 20 caused inquest and post mortem and ultimately, filed the charge sheet. The accused was tried for the offences punishable u/s 302 IPC and 132/184 & 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act and was convicted by the trial Court.

Sri Y. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is hardly any consistency in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. He submits that while P.W. - 16 stated in his evidence that he himself stopped the vehicle at the place of checking; P.W. - 1 stated in Ex. P-1 that P.W. - 16 informed them that the lorry has overtaken his vehicle and asked them to intercept it. He contends that if the lorry has already overtaken the vehicle of P.W. - 16, the question of his asking P.W. - 1 and the deceased to intercept the said vehicle, does not arise much less he could have stopped it. He further submits that inconsistency on the part of P.W. - 16 is evident when, the witness stated that (a) he asked P.W. - 1 and the deceased to stop the vehicle, (b) he himself stopped the vehicle, and (c) he passed on the message through VHF. Learned counsel further submits that when the checking is taking place, the entire staff would be at that place, so much so a Rakshak vehicle was available and the question of availing the services of a two wheeler to chase the lorry is unimaginable. He further submits that when the vehicle was allegedly passing through the middle of the city, crossing quite a large number of police stations, it would not have been difficult for them to intercept it and that too, where there is hardly any traffic on the road, at the midnight.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has presented an eyewitness account of P.W. - 3, and there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the same. She contends that the necessity to avail the services of a two wheeler has arisen in view of the fact that the accused has suddenly speeded up the lorry even while pretending to stop it on being signaled, at Gaddiannaram. She submits that the fingerprints of the accused were found on the steering of the vehicle and a clear link is established between the occurrence and the accused.

Since the death is of a Sub-Inspector of Police, the investigation is bound to be a bit rigorous and meticulous. As many as 20 witnesses were examined and 30 documents were taken on record. In addition to that, MOs 1 to 8 were also marked. The allegation against the accused was that he was driving a lorry bearing No. AP-09Y-7764 in a rash and negligent manner and when a signal was given by the deceased to stop the lorry at Gaddiannaram, he pretended as if he was stopping it, but speeded it up. The deceased is said to have chased the lorry on a motorcycle driven by P.W. - 3 and they were able to overtake the lorry at Nampally. There again, the deceased signaled the lorry to stop, and having stopped at that place, it re-started and knocked him down causing grievous injuries.

Though it is common for the police to intercept the vehicles, particularly, when a specific task of that nature is undertaken, the stoppage of the crime vehicle has its own background. Left to itself, the checking party i.e. P.W. - 1 and the deceased did not have any specific reason to stop that vehicle. It is only on being informed by P.W. - 16, that both of them are said to have thought of stopping the vehicle. The manner in which P.W. - 16 passed on the information is somewhat interesting.

According to the version of P.W. - 1, who presented Ex. P-1, P.W. - 16 informed them that the driver of the lorry has overtaken the vehicle in a dangerous manner and he asked them to intercept it. The relevant portion of Ex. P-1 reads as under:-

".... mean while at about 01.20 hrs. (03.09.2007) Sri Ramachandra Rao, ACP, (Security) Cyberabad came to us and told that the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AP09Y-7764 (Lorry) driven in a rash and negligence manner and dangerously over taken his vehicle and asked to intercept the vehicle for checking..."

A close scrutiny of the statement, even if taken on face value, gives rise to a serious doubt. If, in fact, the lorry has overtaken the vehicle of the ACP, i.e. P.W. - 16, it has already passed him and by the time he reaches the check-post, the lorry may have also crossed it. P.W. - 16 did not mention that he has once again overtaken the lorry and came ahead of it. Therefore, the question of there being any possibility for stopping the lorry does not arise.

If a police official of the rank of ACP notices something objectionable in the course of his duties, that too, in respect of a fleeing vehicle, the minimum reaction expected of him would be that he would pass on the message through VHF. The ACP was examined as P.W. - 16. He stated that he was holding VHF and he passed on the information to P.W. - 1 and the deceased. That was not stated in Ex. P-1 or in the evidence of P.W. - 1. The source of their information from P.W. - 16 was his physical speaking, to them.

P.W. - 16 has a totally different version altogether as to the stoppage of the lorry. He stated as under:

"On the night of 2-9-2007 I was on night patrolling duty and I was going on my official sumo vehicle from Saroornagar towards Malakpet. Lorry bearing No. AP-09Y-7764 came at high speed and tried to hit my vehicle near check post where the deceased was checking vehicles. I stopped my vehicle and I also stopped that lorry. I made the lorry to stand near the check post and entrusted the lorry to the deceased and went away."

This is at variance from what is stated in Ex. P-1. While according to P.W. - 16, he not only stopped the lorry, but also made it stand near the check-post and entrusted further steps to P.W. - 1 and the deceased, P.W. - 1 stated that the deceased made an attempt to stop the lorry by giving signal and even while reaching the vehicle, the accused speed it up. This contradiction remains unexplained. He was extensively cross examined. Suggestions were made to the effect that he entered the jurisdiction of different commissionerate and he has no justification in the process, and that he being on the security of the Chief Minster, it is highly improbable that he is entrusted with the night patrolling duties that too, outside his jurisdictional limits.

In case, the lorry speeded up from the checking point, the minimum reaction of the checking party will be either to chase with the available four wheeler i.e. Rakshak vehicle or to pass on the information to the Police Station ahead through VHF. Instead the deceased is said to have availed the service of P.W. - 3. If the driver of the lorry was found to be so erratic or dangerous and has flouted the signals of police, it is expected to be more careful. However, P.W. - 3 stated that the deceased once again stood before the vehicle after they have overtaken it at Nampally and was hit by the vehicle. It does not accord with the conduct of an ordinary, let alone, alert police official.

Whatever may have been the over confidence of P.W. - 1 and the deceased to apprehend the accused, i.e. the driver of vehicle which proceeded disobeying their signals, the incident is said to have occurred at Nampally, P.W. - 1 was supposed to alert the entire police in the city. However, he did not do so. The lorry was said to have been traced in the evening hours, at a far off place. Even if the lorry can be said to be the vehicle involved in the whole episode, the identity of the person, who has driven the vehicle, is another important aspect. The only person who is said to have identified the accused is P.W. - 3. He is just a person who too was said to have been stopped for checking. He has no occasion to see the accused at Gaddiannaram. He is said to have chased the vehicle and stopped his two wheeler at A1 signals at Nampally, in front of the lorry. During the night hours it would be impossible for anyone, standing before a lorry, to identify its driver inside it, that too, when the person is a Sardarji.

The nature of injuries that are found on the body of the deceased throws any amount of doubt as to whether they could have been the result of any hit by a lorry. For example, one injury was found on the back of the left ear, another on the right elbow and the third on the right fore arm. Injuries were also found on the chest. In case a person is hit by a vehicle, hitting mark will be at one place and the corresponding injuries, if any received on falling on the ground, would be on the opposite side.

When there is serious discrepancy in the evidence of Police Officials themselves, and the identity of the accused is far from satisfactory, it is not at all safe to rest the conclusion on surmises. The benefit of doubt, as in any other criminal case, needs be given to the accused. We accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence ordered against the accused.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C. No. 20 of 2008 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 09.02.2009, against the appellant-accused, are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him.